| 摘要: | 當前國際間往來互動日趨頻繁，而且全世界交通便利、資訊亦即時同步整合，國家與國家間之密切聯繫已朝向無國界的時代邁進。因此，國際間除有政治、社會、經濟與交通等跨國的關係之外，犯罪活動行為也藉由便利的國際交流關係，建立起跨國性或跨境模式，如詐欺犯罪、組織犯罪、經濟犯罪或貪瀆行為等均為適例。但由於犯罪的跨國境趨勢，本國刑事案件中所需要的證據即可能存在於境外，或者是犯罪不法所得因為需要透過洗錢方式而存於外國的金融機構；有鑑於此，為了要能達成追訴犯罪的目的，而有必要使用存在於外國的證據時，或者要執行追繳不法所得時，就須透過國際刑事司法互助來取得該物件，且刑事司法互助的物件交付，除了有追訴犯罪相關的適性之外，對於刑罰執行或經濟收奪制度，例如財產利益之回收(Vermögensabschöpfung)等之執行，更有著重要的意義及關聯。
我國政府歷經1971年退出聯合國、1978年中美斷交等事件後，近半世紀來更由於與中國大陸間主權爭議等因，在國際外交上的處境極為艱困，欲加入國際組織或與外國締結國際書面協定均不易，導致現有之內國法有關法互助中物件交付之規範過於缺漏，僅有在1954年及1963年制定之「外國法院委託事件協助法」及「引渡法」，尚有我國與外國偵查機關間之調查取證的內國法可供依循；再者，我國與中國大陸雖簽訂有「兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議」，惟該協議因未送立法院審議而遭質疑其是否具法律位階性質，且協議內容、要件及程序均僅採框架協議模式而未能具體明確，因此，探討現行兩岸司法互助協議的法律定位，並借鏡歐洲聯盟及德、日兩國有關刑事司法互助中物件交付之規範，對於整備我國刑事司法互助法制，著實必要。
The current international exchanges have become more frequent, transportation has become more convenient around the world, while the information exchanges between the state and the state has moved toward a borderless era. Apart from transnational relations in political, social, economic and other traffic outside the criminal activity behavior by the convenience of international exchange relations, and establish a transnational or cross-border mode, such as criminal fraud, organized crime, economic crime, or the corruption behavior are appropriate cases. However, due to the trend of cross-border crime, the essential evidence of criminal cases may exist in the outside, or is involved with illegal proceeds of crime money laundering and stored in the foreign financial institution, therefore, in order to achieve the purpose of the prosecution of crime or recover the illegal income, there is necessity for international mutual legal assistance.
Through the events of quitting from the United Nations in 1971 and the breaking off diplomatic relation with U.S. in 1978, as well as sovereignty dispute between mainland China for nearly half a century, the international diplomacy of our government has been in hardship. Difficulties of joining international organizations or signing international written agreements have caused the missing of existing norms of domestic law concerning mutual legal assistance. Only the "The Law in Supporting Foreign Courts on Consigned Cases" and the "Extradition Act" developed in 1954 and 1963 can be followed by local investigative agencies as regulatory disciplines for cross-border evidence gathering. Furthermore, although we have signed a "cross-strait common fight against crime and mutual legal assistance agreement" with Mainland China, the agreement was questioned for not having legal status and approval of the Legislative Yuan. Moreover, the content, requirements and procedures of the agreement is only in an agreement framework, which lacks of adequate specification.
Therefore, to explore the current legal status of cross-strait mutual legal assistance agreement and learn from Germany and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal object of delivery specification as for preparedness for mutual legal system of criminal justice, indeed, are necessary. |
